Karnataka High Court

H.P.Lingappagowda vs State By Aldur on 28 January, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                             -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:4019
                                                        CRL.A No. 423 of 2013




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                        BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2013 (C)
            BETWEEN:

            H.P. LINGAPPAGOWDA,
            SON OF H.H. PUTTASWAMY
            AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
            AGRICULTURIST,
            R/AT HUNASEMAKKI KOTEVOORU(V)
            VASTHARE HOBLI
            CHIKKAMANGALORE TALUK - 577 101.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. S. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            STATE BY ALDUR POLICE STATION,
            REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Digitally   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
signed by   BANGALORE - 560 001.
MALATESH                                                        ...RESPONDENT
KC
Location:   (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
HIGH
COURT OF           THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
KARNATAKA
            SET    ASIDE     THE   JUDGMENT        OF   CONVICTION      DATED
            04.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN
            S.C.NO.75/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
            THE    OFFENCE    P/U/S   504,   354   AND    307   OF   IPC.   THE
            APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 2
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:4019
                                         CRL.A No. 423 of 2013




YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY
FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 504 OF IPC.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.S.Shankarappa, learned counsel for the

appellant.

2. Appellant who has been convicted in SC No.75/2011

dated 04.04.2013 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge,

Chikkamagaluru for the offences punishable under Section 504,

354 and 307 of IPC and is sentenced as under:

"Accused H.P.Lingappagowda @ H.P.Harish, S/o H.H.Puttaswamy Gowda, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 504 of IPC.

Accused H.P.Lingappagowda @ H.P.Harish, S/o H.H.Puttaswamy Gowda, is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.

Accused H.P.Lingappagowda @ H.P.Harish, S/o H.H.Puttaswamy Gowda, is further sentenced to undergo

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Further, by exercising the powers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. it is ordered that out of the fie amount realized, Rs.80,000/- be paid to P.W.1, Smt.H.T.Sudha, as compensation and the remaining amount be credited to the State exchequer.

The period of detention undergo by the accused during investigation and trial shall be given set off as required under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

MO.1 Kathi is ordered to be confiscated to the State.

MOs.2 and 3 being worthless and useless, are ordered to be destroyed.

The order regarding disposal of properties shall take effect after the appeal period is over and if a appeal is preferred, then after the disposal of such appeal."

3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this

Court, in this appeal.

4. Sri.S.Shankarappa, learned counsel for the

appellant contended that in respect of the same incident, there

was a counter case filed which is still pending before the

jurisdictional Magistrate in CC No.95/2011. He further submits

that, learned Special Judge having noted that there was a

counter case filed, did not take necessary steps to secure the

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

file in CC No.95/2011 and try together in terms of the principles

of law enunciated by Full Bench judgment of this Court in State

of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others reported in

ILR 2012 KAR 509 resulting in miscarriage of justice and

sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and with a

direction to retry the present case and CC No.95/2011 pending

on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC,

Chikkamagaluru and pass appropriate orders in terms of the

principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka

v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

contended that the judgment came to be passed on 04.04.2013

and none of the parties brought to the notice of learned Special

Judge about the decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in

State of Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra.

Therefore, learned Special Judge was justified in passing the

impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

7. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

crystal clear that in respect of the incident that has occurred on

30.10.2010, there was a case and counter case filed by the

respective parties.

8. In fact, the case that has been filed by the present

appellant is in Crime No.187/2010 and later on, the complaint

in the case on hand, came to be filed by Smt.H.T.Sudha in

Crime No.188/2010.

9. Learned Special Judge has noted that there is a

counter case filed in paragraph No.17 of the impugned

judgment. Despite the same, there was no trial of both the

cases together in terms of principles of law enunciated by Full

Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v.

Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra.

10. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the submission

of the appellant that there is a miscarriage of justice occurred

in not following the judgment of the principles of law

enunciated by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of

Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra and

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

passing impugned judgment, warranting this Court to interfere

with the impugned judgment.

11. It is also noticed that in good number of cases, the

principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka

v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra has not been

followed.

12. Since, it is a Full Bench judgment of this Court, as

to how to try the case and counter case; it is incumbent on all

the Judicial Officers in the District Judiciary to follow the

principles of law enunciated in the case of State of Karnataka

v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra meticulously.

Violation of said direction would result in miscarriage of justice

and consequences there on should follow. All the Courts in the

District Judiciary while dealing with the case and counter case,

is required to follow the principles of law enunciated in State of

Karnataka v. Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra in stricto

sensu.

13. It is necessary that Director of Prosecution and

Home Secretary are required to issue necessary circulars in this

regard to enlighten the Prosecutors/Assistants of Special Public

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

Prosecutors to bring it to the notice of the concerned Judges in

the District Judiciary, where a case and counter case is filed.

14. So also the copy of this order shall be circulated

among all the Judges in the District Judiciary by Registrar

(Judicial) through Judicial Academy after obtaining necessary

permission from Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

15. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Appeal is allowed.

ii. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

passed in SC No.75/2011 dated 04.04.2013 on

the file of Principal Sessions Judge,

Chikkamagaluru is hereby set aside.

iii. Further, learned Special Judge is directed to

withdraw CC No.95/2011 pending on the file of

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC,

Chikkamagaluru and try the same along with SC

No.75/2011 afresh in terms of the guidelines

issued in the case of State of Karnataka v.

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra reported

in ILR 2012 KAR 509.

iv. Parties are directed to file necessary application

seeking withdrawal of CC No.95/2011 pending on

the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru and to file it before the

Principle District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkamagaluru, to be tried in SC No.75/2011.

So also they may file necessary application or

memo with regard to de novo trial if required.

v. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to Director

of Prosecution, Judicial Academy. Further,

Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place copy of

this order along with the judgment of the Full

Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v.

Hoskeri Ningappa and Others supra and

obtain necessary permission from Hon'ble The

Chief Justice to circulate the present order

through Judicial Academy to all the members of

District Judiciary.

NC: 2025:KHC:4019

vi. Further, copy of this order shall be forwarded by

Special Public Prosecutor to Home Secretary and

Director of Prosecution for issuing necessary

direction/circular among the Public Prosecutors

and Assistant Public Prosecutors across the

State.